Two of Milky Way's globular clusters found to have halo stars

(Phys.org)—Australian astronomers have uncovered evidence of halo stars in two globular clusters residing in the Milky Way galaxy. According to a new study published on June 21 on the arXiv pre-print server, the globular clusters known as Messier 3 and Messier 13, have extratidal halo stars. The new findings suggest that both clusters could be surrounded by extended stellar halos.

Messier 3 and Messier 13, containing 500,000 and 300,000 stars respectively, are among the best known globular clusters. However, previous studies focusing on finding extratidal stars in these clusters haven't delivered any promising results so far. Now, a team of researchers led by Colin Navin of the Macquarie University in Australiahave analyzed the available data about the two clusters in order to reveal new insights on their structure.

For their research, the scientists used data from the Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fibre Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST) survey of the Northern hemisphere, which utilizes the Xinglong Observatory in China to obtain the spectra of about 10 million objects, including stars, galaxies and quasars. They chose LAMOST, as this survey covers a number of Northern hemispheric globular clusters and therefore has potential to search for extratidal stars.

"We find candidate extratidal stars in wide halos around the globular clusters Messier 3 and Messier 13 in the LAMOST Data Release 1," the researchers wrote in the paper.

First, the team identified the characteristics of globular clusters that were likely to have member stars in the Data Release 1 Catalog. Spatially, they had to be within the survey area of LAMOST; then, the researchers chose to use globular clusters that had relatively high heliocentric radial velocities. After eliminating clusters that only had small numbers of candidate stars, they were left with Messier 3 and Messier 13 as likely candidates to search for extratidal stars.

Finally, they found eight candidate extratidal cluster halo stars in Messier 3 at distances up to about 10 times the tidal radius, and in Messier 13, they identified 12 candidate extratidal cluster halo stars at distances up to approximately 14 times the tidal radius.

The scientists noted that if the status of these stars is confirmed, they would support previous studies that both clusters are surrounded by a halo of extratidal stars or exhibit tidal tails. However, in order to validate their status, high-resolution spectroscopic observations of the chemical abundances are required.

"High-resolution spectroscopic observations of the candidate extratidal cluster halo stars would be valuable in confirming their origin, and hence provide constraints for theoretical studies," the paper reads.

According to previous studies, a significant fraction of stars in the bulge and halo of the Milky Way originated in globular clusters. It is believed that a minimum of 17 percent of the present-day mass of the stellar halo originally formed in globular clusters. Notably, the tidal debris of globular clusters also act as indicators of a host galaxy's gravitational potential as the extratidal stars spread out in a stream that traces the orbit of its progenitor.

The researchers hope to find more candidate extratidal stars in Messier 3 and Messier 13, and possibly in other globular clusters, as the dataset grows. Meanwhile, they recommend that future observations focus on known photometric members of clusters.

More information:
New halo stars of the Galactic globular clusters M3 and M13 in the LAMOST DR1 Catalog, arXiv:1606.06430 [astro-ph.GA] arxiv.org/abs/1606.06430

AbstractM3 and M13 are Galactic globular clusters with previous reports of surrounding stellar halos. We present the results of a search for members and extratidal cluster halo stars within and outside of the tidal radius of these clusters in the LAMOST Data Release 1. We find seven candidate cluster members (inside the tidal radius) of both M3 and M13 respectively. In M3 we also identify eight candidate extratidal cluster halo stars at distances up to ~9.8 times the tidal radius, and in M13 we identify 12 candidate extratidal cluster halo stars at distances up to ~13.8 times the tidal radius. These results support previous indications that both M3 and M13 are surrounded by extended stellar halos, and we find that the GC destruction rates corresponding to the observed mass loss are generally significantly higher than theoretical studies predict.

Related Stories

This image shows the center of the globular cluster Messier 22, also known as M22, as observed by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope. Globular clusters are spherical collections of densely packed stars, relics of the early ...

(Phys.org) -- In this image, the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has captured the brilliance of the compact center of Messier 70, a globular cluster. Quarters are always tight in globular clusters, where the mutual hold of ...

"Beautiful Nebula discovered between the Balance [Libra] & the Serpent [Serpens] ..." begins the description of the 5th entry in 18th century astronomer Charles Messier's famous catalog of nebulae and star clusters.

The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has captured the best ever image of the globular cluster Messier 15, a gathering of very old stars that orbits the centre of the Milky Way. This glittering cluster contains over 100 000 ...

(Phys.org) -- The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has captured a crowd of stars that looks rather like a stadium darkened before a show, lit only by the flashbulbs of the audiences cameras. Yet the many stars of this ...

(Phys.org)—Located some 87,000 light years away, a dense globular cluster named Messier 54 (also known as NGC 6715) is a real gold mine for astronomers. Recently, an international team has discovered dozens of new variable ...

The sun will rise on NASA's solar-powered Mars rover Opportunity for the 5,000th time on Saturday, sending rays of energy to a golf-cart-size robotic field geologist that continues to provide revelations about the Red Planet.

Three billion miles away on the farthest known major planet in our solar system, an ominous, dark storm - once big enough to stretch across the Atlantic Ocean from Boston to Portugal - is shrinking out of existence as seen ...

Based on data from NASA's K2 mission, an international team of scientists has confirmed nearly 100 new exoplanets. This brings the total number of new exoplanets found with the K2 mission up to almost 300.

102 comments

Odd isn't it? Right exactly where Zwicky said we should expect to find Dark Matter & all those supposedly anomalous gravitational effects. So what do we keep finding instead? You guessed it, more Visible Matter halos & none of the oddball gravitational effects caused by invisible halos, just more visible halos.

Extremely interesting. If globular clusters have halos, we will figure out a lot more about their origins and life cycles. Furthermore, the possibility exists that some of the Milky Way's halo stars could be traced back to globular cluster origins by their velocities. This could have interesting ramifications for the Milky Way's life cycle, and for the effects of globular clusters on other galaxies' life cycles as well.

This is important research.

Meanwhile, M13 is one of the very best astrophotography targets visible in the Northern Hemisphere in the Spring and early Summer, as well as a good thing to look at if you've got a telescope or even a good pair of binoculars. It's visible tonight, in fact, though you'll have to stay up a bit late for it.

Just more support for LaViolette's continuous creation model, where stars originate largely in the cores, and disperse outward therefrom. Globular clusters are the seeds of sibling galaxies, as they migrate themselves outwardly, with their intermediate-sized 'grey' holes hidden therein. Obviously, then, some stars will have migrated further outward to a halo position.

There is no scientific proof that any of those hundreds of thousands of supposed stars are stars at all. Bahram Katirai with his "Revolution in Astronomy" raised some questions that deserve serious consideration. To paraphrase Sheldon, "astronomy is not a REAL science".

Odd isn't it? Right exactly where Zwicky said we should expect to find Dark Matter & all those supposedly anomalous gravitational effects. So what do we keep finding instead? You guessed it, more Visible Matter halos & none of the oddball gravitational effects caused by invisible halos, just more visible halos.

Only odd if you bought into the theory.

Benni, stick with your bshit puppet. It fits you so much better. Hey, that's the only thing you're ever going to say that isn't gibberish, a lie, invalid logic, or a tautology.

Hey Schneibo, we should all come over to your house & look through your special telescope that you claim will enable us to see the surfaces of Black Holes.

Benni, Is this article about BH's?No? Then it's time to start zippin' that smart "Nucular Engineer" lip of yours and PARTICIPATE, not argue....

Observing an actual surface of a Black Hole is way more significant than looking at halos. Here's Schneibo's chance to go after a Nobel Prize & you don't think he should go for it? What is wrong with you? You don't believe in the advancement of science? You only believe in the advancement of Schneibo Crank Math is that it?

He's currently a member of a research group on quantum gravity at Penn State.

And he does PDEs, unlike your lying self.

Tell me, were you born an azzhole or did you have to practice?

.......Mr Crank, just waiting on the picture from your telescope whereby you've been claiming surfaces of BHs have been seen. I don't care a hoot in hell what an Astro-physicist thinks, we don't hire them to design nuclear reactors because most of them, like you, believe in the Perpetual Motion Myth of Infinite Gravity Wells within a finite mass. f you want to dispell that myth, then cough up those pictures, or remain the dumbass crank you've always been.

@Frosty, it has to do with the tidal radius (or Hill radius). Read the article carefully and go back to the beginning of it and you'll find the tidal radius mentioned; then look up "globular cluster" and "Hill radius" in Wikipedia. If that doesn't do it for you then come back and ask more questions and I'll try to explain it as best I can.

Now do you really want to remake that ludicrous statement again, that we can see the surface of a BH?

By the way, the PDEs? You were supposed to do those calculations. Why are you deferring to some lame brain Astro-physicist who is as totally clueless about Einstein's Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle as you are? Imagine, free gravity from zero increase in MASS, do the PDE on that Perpetual Motion Machine.

Now do you really want to remake that ludicrous statement again, that we can see the surface of a BH?

By the way, the PDEs? You were supposed to do those calculations. Why are you deferring to some lame brain Astro-physicist who is as totally clueless about Einstein's Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle as you are? Imagine, free gravity from zero increase in MASS, do the PDE on that Perpetual Motion Machine.

More of the same inane babbling from Benni...Who doesn't appear to realize it makes him look even dumber...

Well....you did say that we can see them. Since we know that we cannot, he is interpreting the meaning of the word seeing correctly...and you appear to want it to mean whatever you meant, (I'm guessing the typical jargon of "inferred presence") which isn't the definition of seeing now is it?

Another day, another crackpot nutjob post.

When you have more than math to verify your beliefs, you might be qualified to judge whom are crackpots or nutjobs. But since all you have is math based on an assumption of why things move the way they do, which requires more tweaking with every observation (usually the sign you are off track with your assumption). You can stand with the crackpots until your beliefs are verified.

And I'm right; that's all we're ever gonna see unless we go there. Colloquially, I'm correct; if you want to get all technical, all we're ever gonna see is their effects.

They're black, you see. That's why they call them "black holes." Just sayin'. This is pretty duh.

How long you been on this forum, anyway? Do you ever read any of the articles, or do you just knee-jerk that they're all wrong so you don't have to because it says "black hole" in the title? Just askin'.

When you have more than math to verify your beliefs

Oh, but I do. You see, there're these accretion disks and jets that black holes make. We can see those just fine.

Oh, and then there's that whole LIGO thingie. You know, detecting them by gravity waves and stuff. Have you heard of that?

.....hey, crank, how do you know a so-called BH causes those thingies? You got pictures?

So when are you going to put up YOUR Partial DEs? That's what you said you'd do, that you had solutions to PDEs found in General Relativity, ones that even Einstein couldn't come up with solutions to. Just what is all this crap coming from you & the tin bendg artist above that I was supposed to come up with the PDEs? You're the one who made the claim that you had them, then you defer it to some clueless Astro-physicist.

Do you know anything about ASTRO-PHYSICISTS? Einstein was a Nuclear Physicist, Schwarzschild was an Astro-physicist as was Zwicky, a couple of your icons. Do you actually know these clowns study very little actual Nuclear Physics,just the basics, they mostly like to dabble around in Perpetual Motion Math, it's why you like deferring to them

What "special" PDEs do you think I'm going to put up? I already put up PDEs that describe the Schwartzchild solution to GRT, you said you wanted PDEs for a black hole, those are the PDEs for a black hole.

There aren't any "MY" PDEs. There's "THE" PDEs. Those are "THE" PDEs.

Meanwhile you said you could solve them. There they are, get to it. Or admit you lied.

How the hell would I know? You're the one who stated you could do it, so I challenged you to put up the solutions to whatever it was you claimed solutions for, then you don't do it, you defer it to someone else, probably because you don't know what a PDE is.

I already put up PDEs that describe the Schwartzchild solution to GRT, you said you wanted PDEs for a black hole, those are the PDEs for a black hole

No they aren't, Calculations that describe the Schwartzchild math for his PROPOSED RADII does ZERO to calculate how such radii makes new gravity appear out of nowhere when the quantity of MASS remains UNCHANGED, but this is the Perpetual Motion Math Astro-physicists like piddle around in, you love it too, that is until you come up against someone who has studied Nuclear Physics as I have, then you go through spasmodic contortions as you try telling us you don't say the things you clearly do say, as above.

Lenni, they worked this stuff out in like 1916. Karl Schwarzchild did it. That's why it's called the "Schwarzchild solution." Why should I bother?

There they are. You claimed you could work them. Get to it.

Hey, Crank.......you're the one who said you "could work them", that you knew about hidden PDE data found in between the lines of GR for calculating Infinite Gravity Wells on a finite stellar mass dubbed Black Holes. Failing that, you now fall back on a "Schwarzchild solution." as the answer for creating infinitely dense gravity wells at the surface of BHs, which the "solution" does not do. Or if you you still think the "solution" defines the point where gravity becomes infinitely dense, then point it out. You claimed you could work them. Get to it.

Now you're just lying. I said they existed; you are the one who claimed you could work them.

Get to it. Or admit you lied (and since you just lied about what I said, the preponderance of evidence says you lied about being able to work "differential equations" too). @Captain Stumpy and @Ira will be around before too long with links to where you claimed it, I expect.

Now you're just lying. I said they existed; you are the one who claimed you could work them.

Get to it. Or admit you lied (and since you just lied about what I said, the preponderance of evidence says you lied about being able to work "differential equations" too). @Captain Stumpy and @Ira will be around before too long with links to where you claimed it, I expect.

The attack dogs, come they will. My, you are one cranky old coot aren't you?

Hey, Crank.......you're the one who said you "could work them", that you knew about hidden PDE data found in between the lines of GR for calculating Infinite Gravity Wells on a finite stellar mass dubbed Black Holes.

I've read pretty much most of DS' (in this thread, at least) and find the only person claiming "infinite" in regards to anything is - Benni. His reasoning appears to be that math uses a value called zero and he has accepted it as a real/existing point (that he cannot see beyond). It's only a reference marker, Benni. Nothing more.Any REAL nuclear physics professional would know and understand this. Guess we know what that means...

Lenni having no answers descends to insults. That's pretty much admitting everything I said. Thanks, Lenni.

Hey, Schneibo, just following your lead you cranky old man. You started the threatening language, I responded. You do this stuff just hoping the other side will just sort of roll over & take it. When it gets shoved back in your face, WOW.

Looks like my work here is done

No it's not "done". You're such a great entertainment value, I'd miss you, I just don't have your time though, but I'll get here when I can to provide the entertainment value exposing the Pop-Sci Pseudo-science you so dutifully regurgitate.

Let's stop the misunderstandings and consequential insults long enough to look at where the whole 'ininite gravity' thing came in.

In GR equations, if extrapolated to BH 'radius = zero', there will arise, in mathematical expression, a SINGULARITY CONDITION implying "Infinite Curvature" of SPACETIME abstract/analytical context.

See?

At NO juncture has gravity itself been claimed to be able to become infinite in strength if the parent gravitating energy-mass in FINITE QUANTITY.

Hence it's all a FURPHY based on the singularity condition indicating GR maths BREAKS DOWN and NO LONGER applies at such UNPHYSICAL conditions/locations as '0' radius in real energy-space terms.

That's why I've been pointing out that 'point' and '0', as currently applied, are NOT REAL PHYSICAL TERMS/VALUES...and hence leads inevitably to such absurd nonsensical misunderstandings as: 'infinite gravity with finite energy-mass' etc. Such are UNphysical 'states'.

And I'm right; that's all we're ever gonna see unless we go there. Colloquially, I'm correct; if you want to get all technical, all we're ever gonna see is their effects.

You seem confused, all you can see is "effects" (what you CHOOSE to attribute them too amounts to your belief, not everyone "believes" what you do). The visual effects you attribute to a BH have been reproduced in a plasma lab...without a BH. And despite STATING that the jet is powered by magnetic fields from the accretion disk, the only support for this is again routed in math as observations do not support the theory.

Oh, and then there's that whole LIGO thingie.

LMAO!

You know, detecting them by gravity waves and stuff. Have you heard of that?

Yeah yeah....sure they did. Keep dreaming "Schneibo". At least you can seek comfort that you are part of mass (math) delusion, and therefore not alone.

Tornados are visual evidence of God stirring the air...true fact.

ElectricBoobVerses

The textual nature of this forum really doesn't do justice to Benni/bshitt's constant, LMAO, ROFLMAO, etc. It seems tiresome and unoriginal, but I think she is actually being honest for once. I think it kind of goes like this. https://www.youtu...NqKrx3yY

Now that has to get an award for bone deep sophistry. Last week a poster said that your antics would eventually force moderation and you replied that it would never happen. A few days later, you invoke it.

Calling you insane is being charitable. Otherwise, you've the least intellectual integrity from a demographic that prides itself on no intellectual integrity.

So you talk about intellectual integrity without being able to differentiate "antics" from a "request". You must be a mainstream theoretical physics supporter...the lack of touch with reality is clear. You are gonna love it here, so many like minded asylum escapees for you join up with, and all of your imaginary friends can chat with each other as well.

Sanity is in not VOLUNTARILY reading crank posts, but instead using the "ignore functionality", but it seems that is what you have dedicated your life to ; going after soft-targets [so that you can avoid discussing actual science?]

What does this make you? The tallest midget? At best perhaps, maybe,.... or of equal quality. Certainly no better without any actual physics substance to correct them.

Haven't you figured out yet that I am lone independent impartial researcher/observer sticking scrupulously to the scientific method and objective commentary/discourse ethics and principles no matter the 'who' or the 'issue' involved?

Recall how many times I have corrected/cautioned incorrect/uncritical posters on all 'sides'.

If you had not kneejerked above, you would have had time to realize my post was pointing out the known/correct science/understandings re the issues in question. Ok?

Please don't keep kneejerking from emotion/prejudice; try to understand/learn fairly/objectively, not 'selectively' according to source/person/poster.

Be careful....someone with paranoid schizophrenic tendancies might see this and accuse you of making death threats.

Speak of the devil...

@bsHow is the physics book burning going?

Hey Satan.Once ones have been written that apply to actual physics, I am sure the marshmellows will be roasting. I'll let you know when we are a little closer to the date, it's amazing how tightly the grip of mainstream math insanity holds on to the indoctrinated...speaking of, shouldn't you be at the Hawking worship service about now?

It is the electric field that binds atoms and molecules.Magnetic fields do not play a role.

Mainstream physics is so irreparably fucked that it refers to magnetic attraction as an "electric field". No wonder you don't know jack shit about real world physics. You come here and regurgitate what the latest physics textbook says and can't even apply it properly. There is no electricity in the "space" between opposing charges, why you morons would refer to this space as an electric field likely comes from the complete lack of understanding of what a point of charge actually is. Of course if you did understand this, I wouldn't get to make fun of you and thus my days would seem incomplete. LMAO an electric field has no "electric" component....like a corn field with no corn.

This is what you wrote only a week ago:Phys1- My main stance regarding your physics textbooks is that they are more valuable as fire fodder.

Correct, you'll notice I didn't say math textbooks. Those will still be valid when the formulas are properly applied. You will even get to use the ones which apply to repulsive force as opposed trying to make a universe full of objects and non-existent matter that are only attracted to one another somehow remain apart. It'll be a great day for physics....not so great for you I gather....

Some people travel to Rome or Jeruzalem and come back in a white sheet spraying holy water and blessings all around.Some read a few popsci articles and then believe that they are great physicists. The technical term for this, I believe, is psychosis but that is another field of science.

Guys! Why keep up these feuds? It does science and humanity no good at all. Not at all. Stop insulting each other; actually communicate civilly and discuss the science issues not the persons/posters. Ok? Thanks.

PS: @ Phys1: It's obvious to anyone closely reading in context bschott's "your physics textbooks" comment that he alluded to whatever textbooks YOU were currently following uncritically (and which may have flaws/errors 'built in' from long flawed work/assumptions/results being 'passed' and let into textbooks/culture which have been indoctrinating your 'understandings'). History shows that many once-accepted texts/claims etc were later falsified/replaced by NEW textbooks. It's the INCORRECT textbooks bschott was alluding to with his 'burn them' imagery. See? Don't blow it up all out of proportions/context, mate. Relax. Peace.

Guys! Why keep up these feuds? It does science and humanity no good at all.

RC, I get flack from my colleagues for allowing myself to be drawn into these types of exchanges, and they say the same thing you said above. You and they are correct of course, but since we are talking about a large difference in fundamental understanding coupled with an ego that appears to bruise if a fly lands on it, (or you say something 100% correct that he believes is 100% insane)...his next move is to start a flame war. This is evident in every single thread he and another poster disagree about something.

Look what happens to you when you attempt to post a comment that is scientific in nature and IRA shows up...I don't see you as genuinely angry when he sucks you in to the exchanges, but I don't see you backing down either.

Some people travel to Rome or Jeruzalem and come back in a white sheet spraying holy water and blessings all around.Some read a few popsci articles and then believe that they are great physicists. The technical term for this, I believe, is psychosis but that is another field of science.

Some people spend their lives and put themselves into massive debt attempting to earn a degree that will lead to a promising scientific career, and thus feel the need to defend what they have been taught at all costs. Generally rabid frustration results when those teachings cannot answer questions about the contradictions found within them, or when people point out the realities which do not support the teachings....I believe the technical term for this is denial, or if strong enough delusional, but that is also another field of science.

...I don't see you as genuinely angry when he sucks you in to the exchanges, but I don't see you backing down either.

Yes, but following 'self-defense' responses 'in kind', I ALSO then try to calm things down and try to get everyone to start afresh without longstanding past/ongoing personal misunderstandings/feuds, the perpetuation of which latter does not serve the interests of science or humanity. May I suggest both you and Phys1 try to defuse each other's tempers/misunderstandings and proceed afresh as two civil intellects after a common understanding of the objective reality as it is for all of us beings in the same boat when all is said and done?

I realize 're-jigging' of attitudes/exchanges will involve a number of 'ghost echos' dying down due to transitional 'cross postings' exchanges until your mutual respect finally settles to a constructive level, so persevere, both of you, and the rewards will be felt by all, not just by you two.

Generally rabid frustration results when those teachings cannot answer questions about the contradictions found within them, or when people point out the realities which do not support the teachings....I believe the technical term for this is denial, or if strong enough delusional, but that is also another field of science.

It's the reason Astro-physicists cannot find jobs. They learn nothing that has a practical & useful application. The dummies spend all their time piddling around with Perpetual Motion Math, so much so that they create a surreal world for themselves in which everything they think about is an unending fantasy, all you gotta do is read all this cranky Schneibo crap which gives the reader a good taste of this kind of thinking, we've had a couple like him in our Astronomy Club over the years, they don't stay for very long.

Most of Astro-physics, for example Concocting Infinite Gravity Wells that you believe exists at the surface of a so-called Black Hole preventing photons from reaching Escape Velocity.

Explain so that I can have a healthy fit of laughter.

So just continue having a healthy fit of laughter as you continue your failed pursuit of looking for employment in your chosen field of Astro-physics, all the while wondering why you can't get a job & have so much time to be on this site almost 24/7 positing your foul mouthed Commentary.

@BenniDid I say I was an astrophysicist? Nope. Did I say that there are a lot of astrophysics jobs? Nope. Will I repeat the content of my previous post here? As pointless as RC's toe!And "Perpetual Motion Physics" is just some brainless personal slogan of yours.

@BenniDid I say I was an astrophysicist? Nope. Did I say that there are a lot of astrophysics jobs? Nope. Will I repeat the content of my previous post here? As pointless as RC's toe!And "Perpetual Motion Physics" is just some brainless personal slogan of yours.

Oh? You're not really an Astro-physicist? Odd......you talk like one & use the same Perpetual Motion concepts of mathematics.

I'll bet if you submitted all your postings from this site to the university nearest you that teaches Astro-physics that you wouldn't even need to take additional classes to get a degree, they'd give you just about all the credits you need, and VOILA PRESTO.....another unemployed Astro-physicist.

This appears to be a nonsense phrase of the same ilk as your "infinite gravity."

And I'm still waiting for you to work the PDEs you said you could work.

What? You don't even know how to read your own links to that Astro-physicist to whom you deferred my challenge to you to solve those PDEs that you claimed existed in GR proving Einstein predicted the existence of BHs?

No wonder the stuff you post here seldom makes any sense, you too are an Astro-physicist having all the skills of beliefs in Perpetual Motion Math.

.......for sure I'm not an Astro-physicist like you are, I have a real job applying real Calculus math skills, not this bullshit Astro-physics stuff piddling around in Partial Differential Equations which have no solutions.

LOL, now it's got a "real job" "applying real Calculus math skills" but it claims the PDEs for the Schwarzchild solution to the Einstein Field Equations of General Relativity that it obviously can't solve despite all its previous claims "have no solutions" and nobody noticed for a hundred years.

You wouldn't know a PDE if it jumped up and bit you on the azz, and if I'm wrong prove it. Reminder:

Odd isn't it? Right exactly where Zwicky said we should expect to find Dark Matter & all those supposedly anomalous gravitational effects. So what do we keep finding instead?

We keep finding insufficient amounts of non-dark matter, precisely as the later CMB spectra now guarantee us. [ https://galileosp...niverse/ ]

Really, who but a troll would comment on a lost cause, which would mean a better theory than both DM or more non-DM matter/non-General Relativity mechanisms explaining the modern data set?

But the troll-bait explains the length of this thread, it usually becomes a feeding frenzy of crackpot delusions of grandeur. {/takes out the popcorn, while watching the pieces of cracked pots that slowly drift to the muddy bottom of yet another mistreated science advance, pondering how crackpots multiply - since they are such natural jerk wads...]

Staggering info we're learning in this conversation. What I read in the "Reciprocal System theory" blew me away. Now that I know this, I am surprised that the page's photons even reached my eyes after they passed my monitor's "gravity limit".

Does this mean that Andromeda is really a nearby solar system that is going to approach our Oort cloud in the next week or two? Should I take off work?

How many years or decades you need to realize that there is no consequence greater than its cause. And in this world things are organized from the top down. From supreme intelligence to minor intelligence. The opposite has never been and is not possible due informational barrier and capacity to understanding the building information?

And that complex physical systems are composed of interdependent ireducible in its structure and functionality entities whose existence makes sense only in the context of the general whole, which is built and supports by them.